Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Oral Arguments

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Then he should have used an example that is actually comparable. He drew a direct equivalency between health insurance and a bible when there is none. Is there some actual service that people could use that isn't mandatory. Car insurance? Nope. Renter's insurance? Nope. I'm being honest, I can't think of many vital services we get to opt out of like health insurance.

It was just an example to illustrate people will disagree with being forced to buy something.

Let me ask you a question. Is it possible to pay for healthcare without having health insurance?

Re: Oral Arguments

Originally Posted by The Fanatic

Who's to stop them from going out of business forcing everybody to take part in the governments plan?

That's the point of the whole thing. Employers will find it cheaper to pay the fine because the rise in premiums (for many reason, covering per-existing conditions, colonoscopy's mammograms with no copay). The plans then become too expensive for individuals who then pay the fine getting put in to the healthcare exchange, causing insurance companies to go out of business.

Re: Oral Arguments

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Oral Arguments

There's stuff involved with that bill that I agree with and think should be addressed, but not at the cost of the entire thing.

That's the problem in my eyes.

They should be addressing the issues presented by the healthcare system and health insurance providers that seem to be the biggest problems of concern.
Not the whole fucking thing!!

So now we potentially are back to square one with the same issues and no resolution because the powers that be thought to fix the problems that exist, they needed to screw with everything about the system which a large majority of the population didn't want.

Re: Oral Arguments

There's stuff involved with that bill that I agree with and think should be addressed, but not at the cost of the entire thing.

That's the problem in my eyes.

They should be addressing the issues presented by the healthcare system and health insurance providers that seem to be the biggest problems of concern.
Not the whole fucking thing!!

So now we potentially are back to square one with the same issues and no resolution because the powers that be thought to fix the problems that exist, they needed to screw with everything about the system which a large majority of the population didn't want.

I agree there needs to be changes. We do need some major fixing to the health care system in general.

But are you saying the court should be making those changes?

I want changes made as well. But not at the expense of the Constitution and certainly not by an unelected court.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Oral Arguments

I agree there needs to be changes. We do need some major fixing to the health care system in general.

But are you saying the court should be making those changes?

I want changes made as well. But not at the expense of the Constitution and certainly not by an unelected court.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure who or how the changes that most of us think need to be looked at should be made.

I'm pretty damn sure the insurance companys themselves aren't going to voluntarily do it and cost themselves more money in expenses if they can get by the way they have and still profit knowing that joe american is going to buy insurance if he can afford it because some insurance is better then no insurance.

I think the government has to get involved in some way to regulate what they can and cannot do similar to everything else.

Doesn't mean I think the government should have the power to force a specific plan down my throat though.

The government wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't look into things to make sure it's in our best interest which is why they are elected to begin with which you're fully aware of.

With that being said....

Just because they're elected doesn't mean I have to agree with what they think or believe is right for me, particularly if these decisions are being made for me by people I didn't vote in.

Re: Oral Arguments

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Then he should have used an example that is actually comparable. He drew a direct equivalency between health insurance and a bible when there is none. Is there some actual service that people could use that isn't mandatory. Car insurance? Nope. Renter's insurance? Nope. I'm being honest, I can't think of many vital services we get to opt out of like health insurance.

Sorry for the delay. While I was typing this I got attacked by my dead beat brother in law. I'm off to the emergency room. Glad I have health insurance. <- Not a joke. Seriously just got my eye gouged by a deadbeat relative. Now I know how BC's wallet feels around his sister in law.

You can grab a free Bible while you're in the hospital
Spammy. You'll need one.

Re: Oral Arguments

If we go off the line of questioning (Which we know can be misleading) as a gauge of which way they will vote
.
Kagan may vote against the mandate but will not vote against the whole law.
Bryer same as Kagan
Ginsburg is for both.
Sotomayor who knows, she has actually asked good questions of both sides.
Scalia against both.
Roberts on the fence about both
Alito against the mandate, on the fence about the whole thing
Kennedy, same as Sotomayor.
Thomas, against both

Re: Oral Arguments

Well, it's hard to imagine how things could be going much worse for the Obama Administration, but now they're going to be dealing with the Medicaid portion, and they may decide to get rid of that as well.

I think it's safe to say the conservative justices and at least two of the liberal justices will toss our the mandate. The debate now seems to hinge if that can be severed from the law itself.

From a historical standpoint, the court has pretty much always ruled that if they reject a portion of the bill, the rest of the bill is also dead. Since this was an all-in-one piece of legislation, if they reject the mandate, history suggest the whole bill is tossed out as well. They can either declare it unconstitutional and the debate is over or send it back to Congress, neither of which is good for the President in an election year.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Oral Arguments

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Alito against the mandate, on the fence about the whole thing

From everything I have read, he's on board with shit canning the whole law.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Oral Arguments

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

From everything I have read, he's on board with shit canning the whole law.

Very possible, I think he's on the fence definitely leaning that way but I just haven't heard him come out and say (of course I can't tell whose voice is whose all the time) something that gives me that impression like Scalia has said.

Scalia "You want us to go through 2,700 pages and determine what can and cannot be severed"